Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1739
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
T. K. ROY – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi – Respondent
CIC/UODEL/A/2024/113332
The misuse of the RTI Act by repeatedly filing applications on the same subject undermines public authority efficiency and transparency.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 5(4) and 5(5) - RTI applications filed by the appellant regarding the Biodiversity Parks managed by (Retd) Prof. C. R. Babu - The CPIO's responses were deemed adequate, and the appellant's repeated applications were viewed as harassment - The Commission emphasized the need to balance transparency with the efficient operation of public authorities. (Paras 1.1, 1.2, 5, 6)
(B) Misuse of RTI Act - The Commission noted that the appellant has a history of filing repetitive RTI applications, which has been previously addressed by the Commission, leading to a conclusion that the subject matter remains closed. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Judicial Precedents - The Commission referenced various judicial decisions highlighting the misuse of the RTI Act and the need for public authorities to maintain efficiency while ensuring transparency. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed multiple RTI applications seeking information about (Retd) Prof. C. R. Babu's role and the Biodiversity Parks, alleging incomplete responses from the CPIO. The FAA directed the CPIO to revisit certain queries.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the CPIO had adequately responded to the RTI applications and that the appellant's repeated requests constituted misuse of the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the CPIO's responses and the appellant's pattern of filing repetitive RTI applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission ruled that while the right to information is essential, it should not be abused to hinder the functioning of public authorities. The appellant was advised to refrain from filing repetitive applications.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/113354
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:
A. (a) Present designation/position of (Retd) Prof. C. R. Babu for the DDA’s Biodiversity Parks in Delhi by DU & for how long period to manage, develop, continues completion of the Biodiversity Parks.
(b) Photocopy of the official appointment/selection/declaration letter for the present designation/position issued to (Retd) Prof C R Babu by DU.
(c) Present official terms/conditions for official function, work, service of (Retd) Prof C. R Babu for the DDA's Biodiversity Parks given by DDA.
(d) Whether official support, vehicle being provided by DU to (Retd) Prof. C.R. Babu for his work for development/completion of Biodiversity Parks.
(e) Complete address of the present working office in DU includes office hours of (Retd) Prof C. R Babu for the DDA’s Biodiversity Parks.
(f) Whether DU being provided/allowed the MoEFCC funded project vehicle (Mahindra Bolero) & it is present expenditures includes Driver's salary for everyday using it by (Retd) Prof C R Babu for working for the DA's Biodiversity Parks.
B. (a) Photocopy of Delhi University’s official notification/power given to (Retd) Prof. C. R. Babu to provide information about DDA's Biodiversity Parks alike other dept's/section’s staffs as subordinate to share information under Sec 5(4) & 5(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the CPIO, DU for providing the desired information to the applicants/appellants.
C. (a) Present official position of the temporary two staffs (Mr. Faiyaz A. Khudsar and Shah Hussain) appointed by DU for DDA's two Biodiversity Parks. #Photocopy of the official position appointment letters of both the staffs.
(b) List of working and official facilities of the above two temporary staffs in the Biodiversity Parks being provided byDU from DDA's fund
(c) Whether DDA Park's vehicles are permitted by DU for personal works by both above staffs
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Project Incharge, Yamuna Biodiversity Parks Programme of the University, who is the deemed PIO under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
Relevant input received from Prof, C.R. Babu, Co-Project Incharge, Yamuna Biodiversity Parks Programme is enclosed in this regard. The applicant may contact Prof. C.R. Babu, Project Incharge, Yamuna Biodiversity Parks Programme on telephone no. 011-****6237 for any further input which may be relevant in this regard.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.11.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.12.2023 stated that:
On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 27.10.2023 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter. On perusal of the OA input provided by the Deemed PIO and decision of the CPIO, it appears that the appellant already have most of the information as requested in the OA. However, the CPIO is directed to revisit the OA and decide Sl.no B (a) and C (c) of the OA within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.04.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2024/113332
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1) (a) Total years with the date of joining &continued working as the Project Incharge, Biodiversity Parks of DDA by (Retd.) Prof. CR Babu.
(b) Name of the authority (DU, DDA) selected or appointed (Retd.) Prof CR Babu as the Project Incharge of Biodiversity Parks of DDA.
Photocopy of the appointment/selection letter issued to (Retd.) Prof Babu.
(c) Exact date (Retd) Prof. CR Babu have been selected or appointed
